While the argument of complicity is only rarely discussed in bioethics, it is of obvious relevance to the issue of imported embryonic stem cells in countries in which the derivation of stem cells from early human embryos is legally prohibited and/or morally rejected. Complicity means that making use of the results or products of an illegal or morally problematic activity is itself morally problematic, although generally to a lesser degree than the original activity. The question arises as to which conditions make the argument of complicity plausible, thus supporting attacks against legislation that aims to promote research based on 'fruits of a forbidden tree'. This paper distinguishes a number of different variants of complicity, proposes that they deserve different kinds of moral valuation and applies the results to the ongoing debate about the German stem cell research law.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60110-1 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Corporate Counterspeech.
Ethical Theory Moral Pract
November 2022
Bentley University, Waltham, United States.
Are corporations ever morally obligated to engage in counterspeech-that is, in speech that aims to counter hate speech and misinformation? While existing arguments in moral and political philosophy show that individuals and states have such obligations, it is an open question whether those arguments apply to corporations as well. In this essay, I show how two such arguments-one based on avoiding complicity, and one based on duties of rescue-can plausibly be extended to corporations. I also respond to several objections to corporate counterspeech.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFOver 75 years after their creation, the Farm Hall transcripts remain a tantalizing source from the dawn of the atomic age in 1945. Declassified in 1992, the transcripts document ten prominent German nuclear physicists, including Werner Heisenberg, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, and Otto Hahn, contemplating the Nazi defeat, their complicity in the German war machine, and - after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima - whether they truly intended to build a nuclear weapon for Adolf Hitler. As a written record of conversations, one might expect the transcripts to be the proverbial smoking gun that determines, once and for all, whether German physicists intended to build a nuclear weapon for the Nazi regime.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFResponse to Commentary by Adriaan van Es.
Indian J Med Ethics
November 2020
Associate Professor, Taylor's University School of Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Taylor's University, 1, Jalan Taylor, 47500, Subang Jaya, Selangor, MALAYSIA.
I would like to thank Dr Adriaan Van Es for his commentary (1) on my article (2). To start with, let me make one thing clear: I am not sure why he thinks that I am condoning the practice of penal amputation. As I clearly state in my conclusion, the arguments that may (or may not) justify penal amputation are abhorrent in liberal societies.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFConscientious Objection in Medicine: Making it Public.
HEC Forum
September 2021
Department of Philosophy, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 200 Gregory Hall, 810 South Wright Street, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
The literature on conscientious objection in medicine presents two key problems that remain unresolved: (a) Which conscientious objections in medicine are justified, if it is not feasible for individual medical practitioners to conclusively demonstrate the genuineness or reasonableness of their objections ("the justification problem")? (b) How does one respect both medical practitioners' claims of conscience and patients' interests, without leaving practitioners complicit in perceived or actual wrongdoing ("the complicity problem")? My aim in this paper is to offer a new framework for conscientious objections in medicine, which, by bringing medical professionals' conscientious objection into the public realm, solves the justification and complicity problems. In particular, I will argue that: (a) an "Uber Conscientious Objection in Medicine Committee" ("UCOM Committee")-which includes representatives from the medical community and from other professions, as well as from various religions and from the patient population-should assess various well-known conscientious objections in medicine in terms of public reason and decide which conscientious objections should be permitted, without hearing out individual conscientious objectors; (b) medical practitioners should advertise their (UCOM Committee preapproved) conscientious objections, ahead of time, in an online database that would be easily accessible to the public, without being required, in most cases, to refer patients to non-objecting practitioners.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFMisusing uteruses? Childrearing capacity and access to transplantable wombs.
Bioethics
January 2020
Lakehead University Centre for Health Care Ethics, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.
In light of recent successful uterus transplantations, it is reasonable to expect that womb transplants will become more commonplace in the future. If this happens, important questions emerge about who should receive the donated wombs. Some arguments have been advanced that suggest that potential recipients should be screened for their anticipated childrearing capacity, as one component of a comprehensive process for determining eligibility.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWant AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!